Page 1 of 2
#1
Students who study art in school are 4 times more likely to be recognized for academic achievement, and art and music classes are mandatory in the countries with the highest test scores for math and science.
Why don't we put more money into arts and music?
#3
Why? Because the interest largely isn't there. High school kids in North America would much rather enrol in sports for extracurriculars, not music and art.
Quote by yellowfrizbee
What does a girl have to do to get it in the butt thats all I ever wanted from you. Why, Ace? Why? I clean my asshole every night hoping and wishing and it never happens.
Bitches be Crazy.

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
#4
Quote by Acϵ♠
Why? Because the interest largely isn't there. High school kids in North America would much rather enrol in sports for extracurriculars, not music and art.

That could be because the art and music programs suck.
#6
Quote by macashmack
That could be because the art and music programs suck.


Quote by korinaflyingv
No, just employ teachers who can actually teach the ****ing subject.


this.

my old highschool had a huge boom in ceramics students when they hired an actual working artist to teach there. the painting teacher was increasingly unpopular because she was spherical, obnoxious, and her taste in art halted abruptly in the 18th century.
i don't know why i feel so dry
#7
Not sure, but I think it might depend on individual state budgets.

I recall art/band/music being mandatory for grades K-8 (at some point everyone had to choose an instrument and join band or orchestra), and these were all public schools. Even went on tours and stuff. Isn't that good enough?
#8
Art and Music classes at my school didn't really involve much teaching. Teachers would tell us to do something, and then never check on it. It just felt like they were trying to keep us busy while they went off to do something else.

Most people did nothing, in music class especially.
I did music IGCSE and we were very ill-prepared for the exam. I think the best grade of our entire class was a B-.

Although I appreciate art and music, not everyone does, and it seems like a strange thing to make mandatory. Students are always saying, "when am I going to use this?" about things like mathematics, science and history. Is it really important to add art and music to that list? You're just forcing it on people who don't care, and probably won't ever use it.
Last edited by sashki at Oct 9, 2013,
#9
Quote by macashmack
That could be because the art and music programs suck.


chicken, egg, etc


people that like music academically like music academically regardless of program quality. more people like sports. Way cheaper to fund sports than music. that's pretty much all there is to it imo
Quote by yellowfrizbee
What does a girl have to do to get it in the butt thats all I ever wanted from you. Why, Ace? Why? I clean my asshole every night hoping and wishing and it never happens.
Bitches be Crazy.

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
#10
It's hard to say. All through school, I was in band. I never realized it until my senior year when the band teacher started having the seniors in each section help teach the underclassmen theory and the music we were playing. So many people just weren't interested and seemed to only be in band because they thought it was an easy grade. It was really a hassle trying to teach basic music theory, even though we only had theory for 30 minutes one day a week. Any other day, we'd walk in, and so many people just wanted to watch a movie or not play the instrument. I don't understand the logic behind it. We have to get people interested in music first.

NOTHING HURTS BATMAN!

Quote by dannay
what this man says is correct.


Quote by clemm
WHAT IS THE PIT!?!?!!!!!!?!??
--clemm

n00b
#11
Quote by Acϵ♠
chicken, egg, etc


people that like music academically like music academically regardless of program quality. more people like sports. Way cheaper to fund sports than music. that's pretty much all there is to it imo

But that isn't set. It's simply a cultural value. Kids who grow up around more art and music will be more likely to enjoy it.

Our art program wasn't the best. The teacher was good but the school gave him nothing to work with. The band program fought tooth and nail to get anything and we finally had some success after years of that.

^basically. We pretty much kicked out anyone who wouldn't do the work. It got more serious quickly so the people who wanted to slack off left quickly. We put in a lot of work because our marching band only had about 30 or so people. Four colorguard.
Quote by Fat Lard
Why would you spend tens of thousands of dollars to learn about a language you already speak? It was over before it even started dude

Quote by captainsnazz
brot pls
Last edited by BladeSlinger at Oct 9, 2013,
#12
They should eliminate Music and Art all together and put it into the real classes for school.
#13
No. Kids are more likely chasing that fantasy that they see from bands rather than actually liking music
Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who...
Quote by Necrophagist777
I'm ORION, LORD OF EVIL, give me your soul and breathe in my darkness.

YOU WILL NOT ENJOY THIS......
╭∩╮( º.º )╭∩╮
#14
Quote by 0RI0N
No. Kids are more likely chasing that fantasy that they see from bands rather than actually liking music

Kids might get some fantasy that they're the next Stephen Hawking if we have too many science classes.
Quote by Fat Lard
Why would you spend tens of thousands of dollars to learn about a language you already speak? It was over before it even started dude

Quote by captainsnazz
brot pls
#15
Quote by Acϵ♠

Way cheaper to fund sports than music

Well that just isn't true.

I do agree that a student who is interested in music/visual arts will pursue that interest regardless of what's available. It is shameful that a school can't provide that, though.

School = place of learning

Oh you like music. That's sweet. We don't have that here.
Quote by Trowzaa
I wish I was American.

~ A Rolling Potato Gathers No Moss ~
#16
standardized tests dont cover that
#17
Quote by eGraham
Well that just isn't true.

I do agree that a student who is interested in music/visual arts will pursue that interest regardless of what's available. It is shameful that a school can't provide that, though.

School = place of learning

Oh you like music. That's sweet. We don't have that here.


Go pay for a tuba and tell me that it isn't true. Buying a new brass section can run you up to $100,000. Buying uniforms and gear for a football team? Maybe, at the most, $10,000. And that's a damn fine uniform.
Quote by yellowfrizbee
What does a girl have to do to get it in the butt thats all I ever wanted from you. Why, Ace? Why? I clean my asshole every night hoping and wishing and it never happens.
Bitches be Crazy.

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
#18
Quote by darkcheef
They should eliminate Music and Art all together and put it into the real classes for school.

And turn us into robots.
Quote by Dave Mustaine
If you want to be treated intelligently, act intelligent.

#20
I wholeheartedly agree that we need better music teachers. Not everyone is born with an inherent love and passion for music, and a solid instructor can and should imbue that into their students (a concept that applies to any subject, not only music).

I'm mid-way through a degree in music education, and something we've been talking about quite a bit is how even students to whom music is everything won't stay in a shitty program with a shitty instructor. If a student is not being challenged by the class, more often than not, they'll either quit, or have their interest crushed. Likewise, a poor program isn't going to draw in many new students.

I've experienced this myself with my high school music program, the instructor was not knowledgeable about the subject, could not manage a classroom, and worst of all simply didn't care about what she was teaching. This resulted in my school having a horrendous music program, managing to exist solely based on the couple dozen students who did it for an easy A. An education in any subject should not be equivalent to babysitting, but that's what many music programs have become.

By increasing funding, schools could afford to hire better instructors, keep classroom supplies in a working order, and draw in more students (and therefore, more money) with their prestigious art programs. Then, they would reap both the educational and financial gains from these programs. Like someone said above me, students who participate in music generally do quite a bit better in "real" subjects like science, math, and critical thinking. That in turn boosts standardized test scores, increasing funding for the school.

I could go much more in depth on the benefits of music education, but this is already a kind of lengthy post.

Maybe I'm a little biased, but I believe very strongly that music and the arts are an absolutely integral part of a solid education.
Quote by stealstrings





C:
#21
This question comes up repeatedly and unfortunately, only by people that are already interested in music and see the myriad benefits. Sure would be nice to get this topic on the table with the people in charge of directing the curriculum and funding.

I took a meeting years ago in a small town school where the director (who went on to become the CEO of our local CFL team) was shutting down the music programs in the school and parents were outraged. The programs were privately funded by the parents so it wasn't even a money issue and he told them to drive their kids to private lessons to the closest center almost 200km away. This prick (yeah, I'm talking about you, Hopson. Stop by and see me sometime) and LOTS more like him had no problem spending thousands on football and other sports, had no problem with kids missing whole days of school for hockey, soccer and football trips, but said in the meeting that kids missing a half hour of class a week for guitar or piano was unacceptable.

This man and numerous men and women (but not all) in positions of decision making in our school systems are complete morons when it comes to the benefits of music vs the benefits of sports. I'm certainly not against sports in school but holy hell, do we need to actually say out loud that more people can enjoy playing music the rest of their lives than continue playing sports as an adult??

Thanks for the opportunity to vent
Last edited by P_Trik at Oct 9, 2013,
#22
To add to what others have already said, the majority of the population tends to have an obsession with pragmatism, ie unless sometime has a direct effect on something, they don't consider it useful. Most people probably don't see the benefits of having a well rounded education (which includes arts and music) in intellectual development.
#23
Quote by zincabopataurio
To add to what others have already said, the majority of the population tends to have an obsession with pragmatism, ie unless sometime has a direct effect on something, they don't consider it useful. Most people probably don't see the benefits of having a well rounded education (which includes arts and music) in intellectual development.

nail ont head
#25
you know, I hate that people use the argument that music education increases scores in math and science classes and thats why it should stay. Why does music need to make other things better to be justifiable? Why can't we just have music for its own purpose?
#26
Quote by Tyson2011
you know, I hate that people use the argument that music education increases scores in math and science classes and thats why it should stay. Why does music need to make other things better to be justifiable? Why can't we just have music for its own purpose?

Anyone who uses that argument needs to learn some math. Specifically statistics and correlation vs causation.
#27
A good friend of mine just got his degree is music, and he told me last week that studying it absolutely killed his love for it. He used to be all about jazz and playing instruments, but he cant stand it now.

All I have to say about that.
#28
Quote by Tyson2011
you know, I hate that people use the argument that music education increases scores in math and science classes and thats why it should stay. Why does music need to make other things better to be justifiable? Why can't we just have music for its own purpose?


Unfortunately, the people in charge of funding a music program often times aren't going to see music as being worth it in and of itself. For them, there has to be another reason that it should be allowed to exist. It's bullshit, but it's the way a lot places are. It may not be a rock solid argument, but it's enough to grab the attention of school administrators.
Quote by stealstrings





C:
#29
Quote by zincabopataurio
To add to what others have already said, the majority of the population tends to have an obsession with pragmatism, ie unless sometime has a direct effect on something, they don't consider it useful. Most people probably don't see the benefits of having a well rounded education (which includes arts and music) in intellectual development.
That sounds like circular logic. You are claiming there is an advantage to a "well-rounded" education, ie a pragmatic reason. Seems more likely that one education doesn't fit-all.
#30
I personally believe that once a student reaches middle school, maybe even a bit earlier, they should be able to choose from art, music, drama, dance, etc. with maybe a requirement that they have to take at least one. That being said, this shouldn't be an excuse for a school to hire a shitty dance teacher because no one ever wants to take dance, or whatever. That could be said for any subject, but I feel like particularly in the arts, not as much concern is placed on the teachers actual teaching skills.
#31
Quote by Rossenrot
A good friend of mine just got his degree is music, and he told me last week that studying it absolutely killed his love for it. He used to be all about jazz and playing instruments, but he cant stand it now.

All I have to say about that.



I'm just finishing my degree in music and studying it has done nothing but increase my love and appreciation for it. I study both jazz and classical. I think maybe his school or teachers are to blame, or maybe he wasn't as into it as he thought he was in the first place.
#32
Quote by MeGaDeth2314
I'm just finishing my degree in music and studying it has done nothing but increase my love and appreciation for it. I study both jazz and classical. I think maybe his school or teachers are to blame, or maybe he wasn't as into it as he thought he was in the first place.


This, absolutely this.
Quote by stealstrings





C:
#33
I don't know what the current budget is, or how it weighs up compared to other countries, but more exposure to the arts is always a good thing in my view. Though I don't think that more/better art classes will produce more/better artists/enthusiast. If you're doomed to write/paint/play then you'll end up doing so, I'm not convinced that better classes will make people who don't want to write/read more likely to do so. However, anything to rip down the stupid assumption that STEM are the only fields that matter and that everything else is just white noise would be incredibly helpful for our society.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#34
Quote by Acϵ♠
chicken, egg, etc


people that like music academically like music academically regardless of program quality. more people like sports. Way cheaper to fund sports than music. that's pretty much all there is to it imo

Sports usually at least cover their cost though if not generate some money though, even Canadian high school football lul.
#35
Quote by Todd Hart
I don't know what the current budget is, or how it weighs up compared to other countries, but more exposure to the arts is always a good thing in my view. Though I don't think that more/better art classes will produce more/better artists/enthusiast. If you're doomed to write/paint/play then you'll end up doing so, I'm not convinced that better classes will make people who don't want to write/read more likely to do so. However, anything to rip down the stupid assumption that STEM are the only fields that matter and that everything else is just white noise would be incredibly helpful for our society.



This. The arts need to be looked at as a group of studies, such as mathematics, sciences, languages, etc. The point of math class isn't to convert people into mathematicians, it's to develop the brain and provide useful skills. The arts do this in the same way by exercising creativity and different types of thinking. Of course not everyone who takes music class is going to want to become a musician, even if the teacher is top notch and the program is awesome.


Like I said in my previous post, I don't think art, music, drama, etc should all be required, but I think students should have to have a certain amount of credits in the arts to graduate.
#36
Quote by MeGaDeth2314

Like I said in my previous post, I don't think art, music, drama, etc should all be required, but I think students should have to have a certain amount of credits in the arts to graduate.

Doesn't that already happen..?
#37
Nah, just decrease the budget for stupid bullshit like math and science.
“Just to sum up: I would do various things very quickly.” - Donald Trump
#38
Quote by bradulator
Nah, just decrease the budget for stupid bullshit like math and science.

You want to know what maths and science inevitably leads to?

/r/atheism.

#40
Plus I think more funding might reduce the excuses of whiny ****ers that can't be bothered to better themselves. I'm sick of people blaming schools for the fact that they're uncultured wankers who find the language in Shakespeare 'too difficult and awkward'.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
Page 1 of 2